USCA11 Case: 20-10857 Date Filed: 01/08/2021 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10857 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cr-00205-PGB-LRH-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ZAFAR BAKHRAMOVICH YADIGAROV, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (January 8, 2021) Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-10857 Date Filed: 01/08/2021 Page: 2 of 10 Zafar Yadigarov appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition for a writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, Yadigarov argues that the district court erred by ruling that his petition was procedurally barred and by denying his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. Because we discern no abuse of discretion, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND A federal grand jury indicted Yadigarov on one count of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and one count of marriage fraud. Three days before trial, Yadigarov’s attorney advised him that he “really need[ed] to plea” because Yadigarov could “get 16 months prison when [he] los[t].” Doc. 427-1 at 2. 1 The day of trial, Yadigarov pled guilty to both counts. At the change of plea hearing before the district court, Yadigarov testified that he had received a copy of the indictment, discussed the charges with his attorney, and was fully satisfied with his attorney’s representation and advice. Yadigarov acknowledged that he had not been threatened, intimidated, or coerced into pleading guilty. And he said he understood it was “exceptionally likely” that he could be deported from the United States because of his guilty pleas. Doc. 392 at 6. The court informed Yadigarov of the potential statutory penalties he faced and explained that the advisory sentencing guidelines range would not be 1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10857 Date Filed: 01/08/2021 Page: 3 of 10 calculated until after the probation office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). The district court cautioned Yadigarov that if the PSR’s guidelines range was different from what he expected, he could not withdraw his guilty plea on that basis. The district court also explained that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory and that the court could impose a sentence lower or higher than the PSR’s recommended range. Yadigarov said that he understood. Yadigarov pled guilty to both counts; the court accepted the plea and adjudicated him guilty. The PSR grouped both counts per U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b) and determined that under U.S.S.G. § 2L2.2(a), Yadigarov’s base offense level was eight. The PSR applied a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, yielding a total offense level of six. Based on his total offense level and criminal history category of I, Yadigarov’s recommended range under the Sentencing Guidelines was zero to six months’ imprisonment. Shortly after the PSR was filed, Yadigarov moved to withdraw his guilty plea. He contended, among other arguments, that he felt pressured to plead guilty by his family ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals